MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075633501

Utility of dynamic-landscape metapopulation models for sustainable forest management

2005· article· en· W7075633501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetapopulationForest managementSustainabilityLoggingSustainable forest managementPopulationSustainable managementSilviculturePopulation model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the utility of combining metapopulation models with landscape-level forest-dynamics models to assess the sustainability of forest management practices. We used the Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) in the boreal forests of northern Ontario as a case study. We selected the Brown Creeper as a potential indicator of sustainability because it is relatively common in the region but is dependent on snags and old trees for nesting and foraging; hence, it may be sensitive to timber harvesting. For the modeling we used RAMAS Landscape, a software package that integrates RAMAS GIS, population-modeling software, and LANDIS, forest-dynamics modeling software. Predictions about the future floristic composition and structure of the landscape tinder a variety of management and natural disturbance scenarios were derived using LANDIS. We modeled eight alternative forest management scenarios, ranging in intensity from no timber harvesting and a natural fire regime to intensive timber harvesting with salvage logging after fire. We predicted the response of The Brown Creeper metapopulation over a 160-year period and used future population size and expected minimum population size to compare the sustainability of the various management scenarios. The modeling methods were easy to apply and model predictions were sensitive to the differences among management scenarios, indicating that these methods may be useful for assessing and ranking the sustainability of forest management options. Primary concerns about the method are the practical difficulties associated with incorporating fire stochasticity in prediction uncertainty and the number of model assumptions that must be made and tested with sensitivity analysis. We wrote new software to bell) quantify the contribution of landscape stochasticity to model prediction uncertainty.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library)Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207